AeroVodochody From Czech Republic, joined Feb 2005, 540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4129 times:
The BAe 146 is a four-engine high winged regional jet capable of carrying about 90-100 passengers. It has a range of about 2,000km and I believe it cruises at around 500 knots. Thanks to its high wing, large flaps and spoilers, and a really cool airbrake, it doesn't need thrust reversers upon landing and is capable of taking off and landing in a fairly short distance. The only real problem I see is that with 4 small engines instead of 2 larger ones, though they are remarkably quiet, it is a pain in the neck to maintain which is probably why it isn't a bit more popular among airlines. Also, I have heard from people that it can be quite cramped inside, but I can't confirm or deny it as I haven't flown one. BAE Systems has ceased production in 2002, 21 years after the Maiden flight.
I hope I helped some, and if not, google is your friend
Planebuff From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3793 times:
There you go, Mhodgson, from what I can see they're really nice aircraft (well, neat, yet cramped.) Also, Mhodgson, if you felt that I was being sarcastic when I said "that really helps! IT DOES! SERIOUSLY! IT ISN'T RUBBISH!
Flown on CO, DL, UA, AA, LX, DL Connection by SkyWest, Song (DL).
Drewwright From United States of America, joined May 2001, 621 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3760 times:
From my experience on the BAE/AVRO on Mesaba and ASA I always thought it was a great plane room wise. Unless you get a 6 across configured A/C the Avro is the most roomy aircraft in the sky. seatguru.com is a good place to compare with other aircraft.
Only thing I find unusual about the plane is the crazy flap noise it makes. It's a one of a kind sound for sure.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13350 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
Never (sadly) flown on one yet.
However, why was it made how it was, what is the context-to me, as important in understanding a type as raw data.
Originally the HS.146, designed in the early 70's, when there was interest in potential 'city centre' airports.
Meaning big noise and airfield space restrictions.
Hawker-Siddeley took a keen interest in this market, even in 1970 proposing a low wing, shorthauler, the HS-141, with two wing mounted high bypass engines, but with large fairings either side of the lower fuselage-for a bank of small turbofan 'lift' engines, enabling vertical take off.
Like the one forward on the F-35B, many times over.
Clearly not practical, rather undermining the need for low noise, but a look at how to do an airliner for city centre airports that would be just enlarged heliports.
So, the more practical HS.146 emerged, but with no suitable engine, if you wanted just two that is, they were not around in 1972/3.
Well almost, Avco developed a very quiet engine, with it's ancestry in the power plant in Chinook helicopters, but four required.
But the oil crisis of 1973, sent shockwaves everywhere, ambitious projects were cancelled, in the UK, this included the Channel Tunnel-already started then, not related to the later completed one.
The Maplin Sands off shore airport, off the coast of South East England.
And the HS-146, apart from the costs of building it, who was about to build centre centre airports in this recession?
In 1978, now as part of British Aerospace, the now BAe-146 was re-launched, as well as the modernised Jetstream from a decade before.
Sales were slow at first, though there was an emerging commuter market, not quite what the HS-146 had been designed to serve though.
Then in 1983, the breakthrough. Though not the first US customer, PSA's order for 25 -146's gave a much needed shot in the arm.
PSA wanted to carry on operating in the increasingly noise sensitive smaller airports in CA , where 727's were too loud, even the new MD-80, both too big for many PSA routes it seems too.
But the BAe-146 did fit.
Sadly, though upgraded to the Avro series which sold well too, BAe dropped the ball by failing to build the 'original' RJX, modernised, re-vamped, with two of the new R/R-BMW engines.
If started in 1992/3, it would have entered service during the regional jet boom.
As it was, the real 'RJX' was another 4-holer, but with new Honeywell engines and other improvements, gained some orders, even flew, but BAE as it was then, killed the whole project in November 2001.
Trb10 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3361 times:
I've been on a flybe BAe 146-300 and it was awful. 6 abreast compared to the usual 5, and I found it really dark and claustrophobic inside and not particularly quiet. Don't want to travel on one again in a hurry!
PM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7078 posts, RR: 63
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
I've been lucky enough to have made 20 flights on BAe 146s (-100, -200, -300) and 54 on Avro RJs (RJ85, RJ100). (With another ARJ to come on 7th July!) Thankfully, almost all flights have been with a five-abreast configuration (on Crossair, Swiss, DAT) and I find that very comfortable. My few flights where the cabin was six-abreast was quite cramped.
I hear it has a comparatively poor record in terms of reliability (though in 74 flights I've never experienced a problem) but as a passenger I love it. Try to get on one - but try to ensure it's five-abreast.